91 Responses to Christianity Crucifying the Constitution

  1. Cognitive46 March 7, 2010 at 9:15 am

    All human beings are equal and they should on equality bases

  2. Cognitive46 March 7, 2010 at 9:17 am

    when the nation is deal on equality bases natural talent pop up.

  3. Pingback: === popurls.com === popular today

  4. Cognitive46 March 7, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Most of the talent lies in middle class nation and if they are facilitated properly, country will be stable in every field

  5. Stephen Dufrechou March 7, 2010 at 9:45 am

    In American political discourse, “God” is synonymous with capitalism and the pursuit of capital growth. To suggest atheism as an alternative–or even to suggest a liberationist interpretation of Christianity, like MLK and Paul Tillich eloquently and powerfully furthered–threatens the ideological controls that the US state uses to manipulate the American population.

  6. jon March 7, 2010 at 9:58 am

    I like this article…it shows how religion in this country is being used to tighten the hold of the elite on the American public. In the land of the free all should practice the religious stance they feel is right…whether that’s Christian, Catholic or Agnostic and Atheist. What we have to do is take back our religion and our voice from the people that want to manipulate us. Religion is a personal matter but it can also be a public one if we foster a discourse where we can find more similarities than differences. I hope we can reach that day…..

  7. John - NY March 7, 2010 at 10:00 am

    “The United States of America is a secular country and its Constitution is a secular document.” – This is wrong on both counts. Just because you can not justify your life style and a God, do not change the facts.

    It is freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.

    The rights that we have come from God, not the government. If they did come from the government, the government could take them away. Think about it.

    • Deathfrogg March 7, 2010 at 10:35 am

      Actually, I do have the right to be free from religious influences. I am not required to believe in a particular faith or religion, nor do I need some bronze-age doctrine to live an decent and honest lifestyle. I am not required to tolerate intolerant beliefs, nor am I required to submit myself to private taxation by religious institutions.

      I have however, as the foreman in a large manufacturing firm, experienced many instances of outright bigotry and dishonesty from individuals who are entirely devoted to the Christian faith.

      One example is the pretty lady, hired as a book keeper for the firm, being caught red-handed forging company checks to keep her husbands business afloat, buy expensive clothes for herself and her kids, and give money to her church, to the tune of about $30,000. She was overt and outspoken about her church and her faith from the first day she worked there. When she was fired for her embezzlement, she filed a lawsuit against the company for religious discrimination, even as she was being prosecuted for grand theft. She was convicted, and required to repay the money she stole, and has yet after three years to pay back a penny. Her lawsuit was dismissed, and we received threats of violence from her fellow church members for months after her conviction. Real christians there.

      I have fired people who use their religion as an excuse to bully people or create conflicts in the crew. I have yet to meet an devoted religious individual who is an honest person, they are all, to a man, dishonest and manipulative and contemptuous of educated standpoints in conversation or procedure. When I see someone wearing their faith on their sleeve, it is an automatic red flag when I hire people. Such people always, without exception, demand special considerations outside of company policy for themselves, and always, without exception will use their “faith” as an excuse to start fights between people and exempt themselves from an awful lot of the basic rules of good worker conduct.

      Such people do not last very long as an employee.

      • Justin March 7, 2010 at 1:17 pm

        So the problem was that she was a thief, not that she was religious, right? Or have you never met one of the billion or so religious people in the world who doesn’t embezzle thousands of dollars?

        • Tom March 7, 2010 at 2:48 pm

          I’ve heard of a study linking religion to immoral behavior, since the very religious feel that they are justified in cutting ethical corners while nonbelievers do not offer themselves that justification. Sadly, all my searches lead back to an MSNBC report on this study which MSNBC took down from Youtube yet doesn’t seem to offer readily at their own site. (If deliberate, the hiding of information is known as obscurantism, and it’s an intellectual sin). I’d love to provide a link to what I just asserted but I’m having a hell of a time finding this article which I have read before…

        • Deathfrogg March 7, 2010 at 3:01 pm

          Yes, the problem was that she was a thief.

          The problem is, she and so many other alleged “christians” are the product of a dogmatic culture that seems to always loudly trumpet itself as being more honest than other people, and seems to hold up particular standards of “decency” that are likely impossible for any normal human to attain in a lifetime as being the standard of social normality, when it so clearly is NOT.

          When they get caught doing something wrong, its GODS WILL, any sense of personal responsibility is shifted away from themselves.

          I grew up in a smaller town with a large percentage of the population being seriously religious. The kids in school were nice, but a lot of them didn’t seem to have anything going on upstairs that wasn’t tainted with that element of magical or wishful thinking founded in the teachings of whatever church they attended. For most of them, a family that did not attend church was not “normal”, and they would let me and my folks know this in no uncertain terms.

          But they would go to church, to see and be seen, look at what the others were wearing, and the cars they drove. They would constantly talk about themselves in terms of material possessions and a constant one-upsmanship on how devoted they were to the faith and the church. But they would quite viciously turn on each other in the blink of an eye over the pettiest crap you could imagine. When a real scandal hit, (as they frequently did) they would gibber and point fingers and weep about how weak people are in the face of “satans influence”, again shifting blame away from themselves.

          They would talk over the fences on Saturday morning about my friends and myself, with our long hair and leather jackets and teenage attitudes, worrying each other about how evil we were, simply because we HAD long hair and dressed in crappy jeans and boots. But so may of them were total, lying hypocrites. The deacon of one local church, got caught running a scam through his real-estate buisiness, another prominent church member being caught in bed with the underage daughter of another church member. The minister of a local megachurch demanding a %15 tithe from people who are driving to church in 20 year old pickup trucks, while HE drives an $80 thousand Mercedes.

          Hypocrites, all of them.

          • anonymous123 March 7, 2010 at 4:57 pm

            You judge all based on few…how simple minded of you.

            • MdM March 11, 2010 at 10:06 pm

              Yeah, that ones called stereotyping and it’s a survival instinct humans have that teach them who to associate with based on prior/ learned impressions, you have it, i have it, we all do. Don’t act so puffy about it.

          • Matty March 8, 2010 at 2:54 am

            It’s so refreshing to wake up in the morning over a cup of coffee and seeing a well thought out and logical comment left on the internet for once. Thank you for uplifting my day, sir.


      • anonymous123 March 7, 2010 at 4:53 pm

        So what you’re saying is that you hire and fire people based on people’s beliefs? This is awesome…this whole article is about how Christians have “inappropriate and irrational aggression toward non-theists” and now you showed the whole world that non-theists do the same. Thank you so much for your post; it’s people like you who make me realize that there are good and bad people on both sides.

        • chimps123 March 7, 2010 at 7:14 pm


          That is not what he said.

          He said he fires people because they steal, cheat, start fights, and don’t follow company policy. He said these people often use their religious beliefs as justification for those actions.

          I don’t want to accuse you of having poor reading comprehension, but the alternative is that you are being dishonest. You choose.

      • John - NY March 8, 2010 at 5:36 am

        Dearest Deathfrogg,
        Unfortunately, your opening statement “Actually, I do have the right to be free from religious influences”
        is wrong. You have, in this country, the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
        If you disagree, please re-read (or perhaps read for the first time) the Declaration of Independence.
        Where does your right to be free from religious influences come from? Can I get the right to be free of smokers, bad drivers and people who do not understand what our country is based on?

        We have all seen people who claim to be religious or use religion as a cover. It is a bit presumptuous and prejudiced to make statements that start with “Such people always, without exception”.

        It sounds as if you have some rather questionable hiring and firing practices. I wonder what the ACLU would say if you used the same prejudices based on color of skin or nationality? (Of course they will back you since you are defending yourself against religion…)

        BTW – was DeathFrog with one “g” taken?

        • Unkle Al March 8, 2010 at 7:43 am

          Amendment I (of the Bill of Rights)

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

          John, the 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of “free exercise” of any religion, AND implicit in that is the freedom to not practice any religion whatsoever.

        • elisevil March 8, 2010 at 9:03 am

          Are you being purposefully obtuse? The Bill of Rights is so integral to our Constitution that Rhode Island refused to even schedule a meeting to ratify the Constitution and become a state until these critical first 10 amendments were written in. States such as Massachusetts (Shay’s Rebellion) had experienced new civil wars after winning the war against England largely because there was no protection of liberties. It was after Shay’s rebellion over debt imprisonments that Jefferson made his watering the tree of liberty quote.

        • Bill March 12, 2010 at 2:47 pm

          The declaration of independence doesn’t confer any rights at all. It is the constitution that spells them out from a legal standpoint. Certainly the establishment clause prohibits creating laws that require us to be proselytized by Muslim doctrine in public schools. If that’s not freedom from religion I don’t know what is.

    • That guy with the unpopular ideas March 7, 2010 at 10:38 am

      Actually, sir, I think if you do a little research you’ll find that you are in fact incorrect. America IS a secular nation. The constitution IS a secular document. The very existence of the first amendment, however inconvenient to your beliefs it may be, supports that idea. In truth, the words “under god” were not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1948, and the slogan “in god we trust” was not adopted as a national motto until 1956, though it appeared on coins before then. To imply that a nation founded on freedom from religious persecution would favor one religion and discriminate against all the rest is just silly. Have a nice day, Mr. John from NY.

      • elisevil March 8, 2010 at 9:12 am

        And the only reason that those were inserted is that there was this existential fear of godless communism at the beginning (middle, end and the hereafter) of the Cold War with the U.S.S.R.. It’s like they were more afraid of losing their god than of losing a war!

      • Pierre Savoie March 8, 2010 at 2:26 pm

        Right. What can be done can be undone. The government was moved by paranoid impulses then. They can wipe references to God clean if moved by positive impulses. The European Community drafted a working constitution and did not mention a God even once.

    • Sebastian March 7, 2010 at 11:01 am

      You keep dreaming your right-wing dream, and making up fantasy facts in your little bubble of intolerance and we’ll keep living our lives free from your idiocy and any religion we choose not to pay attention to. Deal?

      Review your history books, and quit your revisionist nonsense. America is not a Christian country. America is a SECULAR country, founded on the idea that no one religion could exert control over it’s social structure and populace. This is why the Puritans came here, remember? To ESCAPE religious persecution.

      And whether you call if freedom OF or FROM religion, it’s the same – I don’t have to believe in your religion, and you have no right to create laws which constrain my freedom.

      • John - NY March 8, 2010 at 5:42 am

        Do I have the right to be free of religious persecution? Or just you?

        About your point “And whether you call if freedom OF or FROM religion, it’s the same – I don’t have to believe in your religion”
        It is not the same. I am merely pointing out the accurate wording. It is Freedom OF Relgion. I am not making this up. Feel free to research this – It might help you. The difference is bigger than you want to believe.

        You do not have to believe in my religion or any one else’s but you have to give them the right to do what they believe – as long as the do not hurt any one in the process.

        • Unkle Al March 8, 2010 at 7:49 am

          Nowhere does the phrase “Freedom of religion” exist in the 1st amendment, so you are NOT accurate in your statement. I’ve quoted it here for you, go do the research yourself.

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

    • Brandon March 7, 2010 at 1:09 pm

      If rights come from God, and not the government, then why do rabid nonsensical bigots such as yourself always cry “show me where the right is in the Constitution” on everything you disagree with? Gay marriage? A right granted by God. Welfare/charity? A right granted by God. Paying the taxes you owe to the government? A duty commanded by God.

      Seriously, get out of the cult while you still have time.

    • Human March 7, 2010 at 1:45 pm

      Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Those who don’t want to believe in any god are no less american than those who choose or are led to believe. The founding fathers did not care for Christianity, yet allowed it to be practised due to their commitment to the principle of freedom of religion. The rights we have did in fact come from the government, or at least those who made up those early governments of the original 13 states. The bill of rights, which is the document that defines our rights, was first debated and then put on paper by the founding fathers! Those rights can be changed whenever there is enough political support to change them. When that happens it’s called an amendment to the constitution. Again, we the people make those changes.

    • W_Nelson March 7, 2010 at 2:18 pm

      Actually, America was not founded as a secular country — the impetus of America was a blend of Christianity and the ideas of John Locke.

      A simple read of the FF makes this apparent.

      • Nate March 7, 2010 at 8:23 pm

        You’re right, a simple read would make that apparent. A thorough read, on the other hand, of nearly any of our founding fathers writings on the subject would show you that they were, for the most part, deists with a strong mistrust of religious institutions. What you seem to be speaking of are sets of talking points often put out by religious groups with an obvious agenda to destroy the very intentional limits on religious institutions attempts to meddle in the political system.

        Jefferson in particular wrote about his belief that Jesus was a man, not the “son of God”. Read the Jefferson Bible to get a good idea of where he was coming from. He removed all supernatural aspects of the Bible, which he believed to be false.
        “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter” – Thomas Jefferson (Works, Vol. iv, p. 365).

        In the political documents, correspondence, and other writings of Washington, few references to the prevailing religion of his day are found. In no instance has he expressed a disbelief in the Christian religion, neither can there be found in all his writings a single sentence that can with propriety be construed into an acknowledgment of its claims. None.

        Franklin was openly hostile to religious belief.

        “My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself” Benjamin Franklin (Autobiography, p. 66).

        Spend some time reading their actual works and you will see the truth. Not that truth is your primary objective in regards to this, but rather the furthering of your barbaric, intrusive, and unstudied belief system.

      • Unkle Al March 8, 2010 at 7:55 am

        Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

        -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

    • John - LA March 7, 2010 at 10:56 pm

      Your right. We should be able to read the 10 Commandments in class because it’s a civil right of speech and religion. We should allow Islamic teachers to read the Koran in schools as well. If Christianity is part of our government then all religions should be considered. Teach the Bible one day and the Torah or Vedas the next and society would learn more about people they don’t understand. Or at least teach some Native American religions because that’s what we were really founded on.

      • Unkle Al March 8, 2010 at 8:16 am

        So who gets to decide which religions to teach and which to leave out ? Should we be teaching Scientology as well ? What about paganism ?

        • elisevil March 8, 2010 at 10:02 am

          At least for public, government run schools, any religious teaching needs to be from a historical point of view. The risk of an ‘Establishment Clause’ judgement against the school for teaching any religion would be too high otherwise. You’re not allowed to take advantage of the Freedom of Speech while breaking the Freedom of Religion while you work for the government, even as a lowly teacher. Even many music teachers religiously avoid religious music (the vast majority of certain historical periods) in chorus classes so no one can make that accusation. So no Kyrie’s till college.

    • concerned March 8, 2010 at 12:18 am

      The government can and has taken such rights away, on numerous occasions. Whether such rights come from God is not for an individual to say; for who can claim to know the mind of God? You see the fallacy of saying something like this? It’s a nice thing to believe, but it’s a cop-out that allows us to shunt responsibility off onto the divine plan. Wouldn’t God want us to be responsible? There is no substance to this line of thinking at all…

      • Mark March 9, 2010 at 8:05 am

        There are no gods so your comment is moot.

    • TRCBlogger March 11, 2010 at 7:43 pm

      What rights does religion not take away? Is religion not a means that divides people? It would be hard to argue that religion has made the world a better place. Throughout history, many of the bloodiest battles and heaviest fighting has been caused by religion.

  8. Josh March 7, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Though I thoroughly enjoyed this article and agreed with most of the viewpoints in it, I’m afraid the authors are guilty of stereotyping and perhaps a bit of hypocrisy.

    “They have no defense against the peaceful challenge of rational thinking. This is one thing that unites the religious regardless of their creed. There is one thing of fundamental importance to their existence that they all share.”

    I cringed every time I read the word “they” in this entire paragraph. Does “they” refer to the 76% or so of the American population who identify as Christian? On what grounds do the authors feel they have the knowledge or authority to speak for such a large number of people? While they may certainly comment on the actions and words of individuals such as Bill Donohue, I can see no grounds for expanding their judgment to everyone who identifies as religious.

    I have had many very religious friends who have been both accepting of my atheism and just very pleasant people in general. The presence of prejudice and stereotyping in this article really detracts from its value. Just one heathen’s opinion :).

    • Bill March 12, 2010 at 2:59 pm

      Yes, I cringed about that as well. I am a scientist and mathematician, but I do believe in a higher power. Rational thinking is not quite as bulletproof as some atheists would have you believe. There’s Goedel’s incompleteness theorem, for one thing. Also, an overemphasis on rational thinking discards the validity of understanding irrational thinking. Not to say that one should deliberately engage in it, but if one wants to be truly happy one should learn what drives people when the rational centers shut down. And that goes not just for negative irrational behavior either. Irrational spiritual “knowing” can be quite powerful as a human experience, whether god exists or not.

  9. nojunkie March 7, 2010 at 11:05 am

    This entire website is devoted to hate and intolerance. Hypocrites. They have also figured out a way to rig Digg.

  10. Brian MI March 7, 2010 at 11:05 am

    This article would have us believe that the members of this secular coalition were just trying to present three point that “anyone” that is a responsible and caring would/should be glad to support.

    Not so.

    The very first item on the list opens up a can of worms because it looks to establish the state and whatever health care standards it wants to enact as the “bar” by which children must be raised.

    Unfortunately, the state in the form of the FDA has been and continues to be the slave of the big pharma industry. Vaccines and cancer treatments both are both poison in almost every case…but they are some of the biggest money makers out there and thus trumped up studies are created to keep the American people in a sort of psychological slavery to the misinformation put out on these things.

    My kids will NEVER have another vaccine. Ever. There are natural ways to make sure your kid has a healthy immune system that is free of all the side effects that accompany vaccines.

    If the government decided that my kids must have “forced access” to vaccination (read: I go to jail if I do NOT give them that poison) then I have a serious issue with any type of policy that would tend to stray in that direction. In fact, I would consider it my moral obligation to protect my children from a totalitarian government that would try to force me to poison my kids.

    • JP March 7, 2010 at 3:08 pm

      This is the kind of nonsense and middle-ages ignorance that would make me feel ashamed of being american – religious or otherwise.

      In countries in the civilized world, people may question the results of science, but not its value. It’s obvious that there are monetary interests at stake, but anyone diminishing the value of vaccines in modern civilization is just – plainly put – ignorant. Why someone would choose to perpetuate such ignorance, that’s a mistery.

      Why people take pride in that ignorance, is an even worst side-effect of the kind of self imposed ignorance that only blind faith justifies. Not saying this affects everyone capable of faith, but the minute you allow yourself to stop using logic to define your world, you’re closer to falling into this trap of accepting things without being informed. You allow yourself to have an opinion without learning the facts first. And that is dangerous at all levels of society.

      And that’s what makes the good religious people so important. Those who – despite their faith – can understand science, apply logic to their arguments and reserve their religious views for matters that affect their spirituality. Believe it or not, plenty of religious people are against ignorance. Then, there’s Creationism. Way to go America.

      How dare we criticize Islam for its fanaticism, when there are Christians that ACT EXACTLY THE SAME. Don’t believe me? Search the net for the so called “True Christians”, and find the nice forum where members of such a group are defending how a girl who was 16yo raped should be forced to mary the rapist. That’s the sort of nuts america is brewing.

      I know the above is a rant. But if ignorance is unnerving, the pride that some people seem to have on their self-imposed ignorance is baffling.

      • Dave B March 7, 2010 at 6:52 pm

        I never post to these sort of articles, because of the inherent fervor of opinions, but I feel on the topic of vaccines I must. Vaccines are essential to our children and the future health of this country. I am an mathematical epidemiologist, so studying disease spread is how I make my living. There is something called herd immunity, what it mean is basically if I took a room of 100 people, if the number of people in the room who are vaccinated meets or exceeds the number, than the disease will not become an endemic(it keeps persisting and spreads). For say measles, this number is 90-94.So for all the parents out there not vaccinating there children, you are leaving your children open to this disease as well as others. Should this “movement” catch on, than you could easily have some of the worst preventable disease spreading among our children. Once herd immunity is lost, the chance of spreading among children is shockingly high. This comes from the natural meeting of children(school) and the usual less than ideal sanitation children use in their everyday lives(sneezing and coughing in the direction of other children, ect).
        Vaccines are inherently a safer option. The worry of using mercury is a practice long since dead(and when it was used it was a non-toxic form), causing autism or other problems has been shown to be complete media sensationalism, and the practice of non-vaccination can be seen in countries like Cambodia, where measles was a large problem up until about 4 yrs ago. Learn the facts before you decide to put your children at risk, and I can show you all the works, including my own publications, and CDC records if you wish.

    • Adam Ruzzo March 8, 2010 at 8:21 am

      Those are some pretty powerful accusations. I believe the phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is in play here. So what evidence of this “poison” and conspiracy is so solid it convinced you that vaccines are poison? It must have been really really good for you to accept such a radical view of the world.

      I Imagine you were given first hand access to the vaccine laboratories and tested the contents yourself for all the ingredients. Then you must have done the due dilligance of finding out how those ingredients actually effect the human body.

      Or maybe you didn’t do it all yourself, I’m sure you have links to a vast consensus by experts in the field that will all state that ingredient X in vaccines is harmful to us.

      This is a very important accusation, please share your compelling evidence with us. Or did you just hear about it on Bill Mahr’s show?

      Don’t forget: Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence.

    • Pierre Savoie March 8, 2010 at 2:50 pm

      I think you should look up Anti-Anti-Vac because you may have absorbed bad information from the Anti-Vaccine movement. Claiming vaccines are “poisons”? These people promote out-of-date info on a thimerisol additive (which consisted of TRACE mercury) which has in fact been discontinued in all vaccines in the U.S. since 2002. Reality doesn’t stop them lying about it though. It’s because some scientific doofuses get a kick out of misleading even more ignorant people!

      • Pierre Savoie March 8, 2010 at 2:52 pm

        Oh yeah and when there was no more thimerisol, the rates of autism went UP, not down…

  11. Matt M. March 7, 2010 at 11:18 am

    As always, those who most flamboyantly and shrilly anoint themselves Arbiters of American Patriotism wage the most vicious wars on its core principles. -Glenn Greenwald

  12. Eric March 7, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    1)The Catholic League is a small, but vocal minority of conservative Lay persons (Not Church Officials i.e. Priests, Deacons, Religious Men &Women) within the church. The majority of Catholics are unaware that it even exists, so I’m not sure you can actually say that the church or even the Christian Community is out to get the SCA or anyone for that matter.
    2)Within a democracy votes, and policy go with the majority vote, and the majority of our country is Christian. Separation of Church and state will keep an ordained person from holding public office, but you cannot legally exclude their followers. This is a country predominantly made up of Christians, so it has a Christian character, but is more accepting of other religions and cultures than any other country on the planet.
    3)You think and write the same way the people you are in opposition to do. You figure that eventually everyone will come around to your way of thinking because you’re correct, and they are wrong. You can neither prove, nor disprove God’s existence and much of what’s claimed by religion. But what you’re arguing is that eventually once we all get as “smart” and smug as yourself we will all realize how wrong we were. That’s how religious prostyletizers think and talk. There’s fundamentally no difference between you and them, it just so happens that there are more than them of you so you get minority status and are allowed to whine about it and people will feel bad. In America today nobody just wants to be the middle class white dude who does his or her job. Everyone wants to be special. You’re not a special snow flake and society crushes all of us with the same weight. Man up!

    • J A V March 7, 2010 at 10:21 pm

      “This is a country predominantly made up of Christians, so it has a Christian character, but is more accepting of other religions and cultures than any other country on the planet.”
      I didn’t know Canada was extraterrestrial. 😛
      Let’s just do a small thought experiment. Given a religion X and a secular group Y let’s look at the fundamental differences between them.
      X has nice people; Y has nice people.
      X has zealous people; Y has zealous people.
      X believes things without evidence; Y might not believe things without evidence.
      That about sums it up. I know that I make one assumption about the universe, that it is understandable. And I’ll even take it on ‘faith’, but usually it seems to hold up with evidence. This is why Atheists can seem extremely arrogant. Assuming they believe only in provable things, and if the universe is understandable then they are by definition correct! Just remember, there are also crazy Atheists who are illogical. Being an Atheist doesn’t make you smart. Looking at facts and proving things does.

      • Bill March 12, 2010 at 3:07 pm

        The non-understandable portion of the universe is not understandable. There are some things that are demonstrably unknowable, such as what it is like not to exist.

    • Pierre Savoie March 8, 2010 at 2:55 pm

      God and the absence of God are hardly a 50/50 coin-toss. It’s hardly proselytizing to call people to reason any more than it is to call children to grow up and be toilet-trained. The “opinion” of not automatically defecating in your shorts is much more compelling than the opinion of continuing to defecate in your shorts!

  13. MARCO March 7, 2010 at 3:14 pm








    • Tim March 7, 2010 at 4:58 pm

      I did ask GOD for guidance….he let me know there were many ways to Him.

      I no longer use an operator(pastor/father/etc)….I dial direct.


    • No way are you for serious? March 7, 2010 at 7:24 pm

      I think I have a better answer.

      “constitution IS a secular document. The very existence of the first amendment, however inconvenient to your beliefs it may be, supports that idea. In truth, the words “under god” were not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1948, and the slogan “in god we trust” was not adopted as a national motto until 1956…”
      -Mr. John from NY

      To Continue on Johns Framework, It has been argued very well by Garry Wills that the purpose of a separation of church and state is as much a protection of the state from religious influence as it is protection of religious congregations from politicization and implicating secular courts in inter-churh manners and grievances. Early colonial America theological grievances, and supernatural speculation present in puritan era resulted in court sponsored executions and seizure by agents representative of the Church of England despite an edict for toleration. Paired with the Great revivalist flair of the Great Awakening lead such Enlightenment figures as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to draft a document secular in nature that provided protection for religion, the state, without the establishment of a formal religion.

      In conclusion the first amendment is not to rid the country of religion or protect society from religion rather it’s nature is to allow these two to co-exist and in a manner that avoids direct conflict or rulings that would air on the said of establishment of a state religion.
      Some issues that do arise regarding taxation which is issue that Madison was very adamant and struggled to implement better regulation.

      —Another Note—
      Fundamentalism or the intolerance of divergent views on the being of God. Is not the majority view in despite representation as such in most media. I do think this article is guilty of some gross oversimplifications and misrepresentations of religious groups; specifically, regarding Catholics and the Catholics League presented as representational of Catholic belief; however, such is the case with most reports putting religion and politics within framework of conflict.

    • Pierre Savoie March 8, 2010 at 2:59 pm

      Aren’t you just perpetuating anti-Catholic prejudices from hundreds of years ago, like in England when priests were killed by marauding Protestant bands and Catholics could not own property?

      Answer me one simple question: if you have Eternal life, is your brain going to swell up eternally to store all the memories of an infinite life? Because we KNOW how the brain works now; we’re not ignorant shepherds of the past, and we know the brain is like a computer with a set amount of memory. Some of our old folks have trouble remembering ONE lifespan and here you religious people think you are going to have an infinite one! Where is all the brain-matter going to come from? Or are you some strange forgetful creature, like the infinitely-living “Struldbrugs” from Jonathan Swift’s book GULLIVER’S TRAVELS??

      I never get a good answer from the religious, and since eternal life is not rationally possible, you should not listen to any con-men promising it to you!

    • Pierre Savoie March 8, 2010 at 3:11 pm

      Also, you’d better read your Bible more closely. It says from Ezekiel that, before the great Tribulation and Apocalypse happen, Egypt has to be desolate for 40 years! Yet Egypt has been one of the most continuously inhabited places, thanks to the Nile.

      Hmmm, I dunno! If I see somebody has nuked Egypt desolate, I’ll wait 39 and a half years and THEN I’ll believe in Jesus!

      • Mark March 9, 2010 at 8:17 am

        Yeah, the bible also says that mules talk and that there are witches and unicorns and zombies. Oh my.

    • Mark March 9, 2010 at 8:15 am

      What, are you kidding me? I CAN HEAR YOU NOW.

    • Bill March 12, 2010 at 3:22 pm

      This is the new baptist thing, isn’t it? To claim some kind of linear progression back to Christ, or even John the Baptist, that totally bypassed the Catholic Church for centuries, unknown to any secular historian. And then what, the KJV (King James was born Catholic, so how’s that work) is the true word of God? Weird.

  14. Eric March 7, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    ^Troll Alert, but still a funny Troll.

  15. Tim March 7, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    Plain and simply: There is NOTHING in the CONSTITUTION that says Christianity, or ANY OTHER religion, shall be the guide for the laws of the land. In fact, it makes sure ALL of us have freedom of religion…and that no one can impose their beliefs on others through the legislative process.

    (And I said ‘”…in the Constitution”. No Federalist Papers, or ‘so-and-so’s notes, or “They were all Christians”. If you believe in adhering to the Constitution, then show me the actual wording if you are to challenge the above statement.)

    There is nothing wrong with religion; but there IS something wrong those currently running organised religion. You cannot legislate morality, or faith, and it is un-Constitutional to do so. Maybe if they spent a little more time on the pulpit at church, instead of the ‘bully pulpit’, their congregations would be in trouble. How can you tend to your flock when you aren’t there?

    • Tim March 7, 2010 at 3:43 pm

      Oooops, 2nd to last sentence.

      *…would NOT be in trouble.*

    • Doug M March 7, 2010 at 3:58 pm

      “You cannot legislate morality” ?

      Sure you can. We ban murder and theft, and punish both divorce and duplicity. It might not have an effect, but the Congress has a clear ability to legislate to promote moral goods and deter or punish moral wrongs.

      You know, moral wrongs like, oh, employment discrimination based on religion.

      • Tim March 7, 2010 at 4:49 pm

        Any kind of discrimination is wrong.

        Now, ’employment discrimination based on religion’ can mean soooo many things.

        You do not have a ‘right’ to try and convert people at work.
        If you refuse to do something for religious purposes at work, knowing it was part of the job description, then find another job….there is(as the far-right points out) NO ‘right to employment’ in this country. If you want a job, you follow their rules.

        Now, firing someone for observing a religous holiday, or reading the Bible…or Quran… on their break, THAT is discrimination.

        Oh, and there is nothing wrong with ANY employee saying either ‘Happy Holidays’ OR ‘Merry Christmas. They are both perfectly acceptable if you know your customers well enough.

      • Adam Ruzzo March 8, 2010 at 8:29 am

        Might be better to say, you cannot legislate morality unless it affects someone else.

        My favorite quote that describes my views on the rights of man was made by a judge, i don’t remember which one:

        “The right to swing my fist, ends where the other man’s nose begins.”

        Another great one by Jefferson:

        “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

        So, in conclusion, if two gay guys are getting it on in their own house and not bothering anyone else, it’s none of the government’s business. If one person chooses to smoke (weed, cigarettes, whatever) or drink, so long as they don’t drive under the influence or beat their spouse, it’s none of the government’s business.

        In the same vein, if someone chooses not to believe in god, it’s none of the government’s business.

        (These are examples, not the only cases to be considered).

      • Unkle Al March 8, 2010 at 8:34 am

        Murder, theft, and duplicity are civil wrongs perpetrated against individuals and are legislated against due to the causing of harm to the victim. They may also be viewed as morally wrong, but that is not the basis in law. There is no civil law against divorce.

  16. Doug M March 7, 2010 at 3:56 pm


    The pie chart depicting “16%” implies that Christians are a mere 33% of the population… when, according to the pew survey used to back up the study, Christians form more than 78% of the American Population.

    And that “16%” is the Unaffiliated box — which only includes some 1.6% atheists and 2.4% agnostic, with the far majority of the unaffiliated (12.1%) affiliating as “nothing in particular.”

    The over-reaction by the Christian wackos was out of proportion, but that does not justify either smearing the rest of us in with the wackos, or inflating the very small number of Americans that these groups actually represent.

    • Pierre Savoie March 8, 2010 at 2:13 pm

      It looks like it’s really a WORLD population pie-chart, not U.S.

  17. Corey March 7, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    GREAT !!!
    Two thumbs up !!!

    “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”
    ~ Thomas Jefferson

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
    ~ Tripoli of Barbary. Art. 11. – Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

    “The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion”.
    ~ Thomas Paine

    “The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church and the State.”
    ~ James Madison a.k.a. ‘The Father of the Constitution of the United States of America

    “The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.”
    ~ George Washington

    “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”
    ~ Thomas Jefferson

  18. Dertiv March 7, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    Oh, my, my. Such delusions and willful ignorance.

    This clearly demonstrates that in a jesus-soaked brain there is simply no room for reality.

  19. Natali March 8, 2010 at 3:49 am

    So much for seperation of church and state.

  20. skeptologic March 8, 2010 at 9:25 am

    “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”

    Treaty of Tripoli
    Ratified by the US Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.

  21. Pierre Savoie March 8, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Very good, but near the end it should read “reined in” (reins of a horse) and not “reign” (royal rule).

    • Jack Robertson March 8, 2010 at 4:30 pm

      No he wrote it correctly. He wants Christians “Reigned” in. That was not a slip.

  22. Jack Robertson March 8, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    If you hate God so much and want to live in a country that hates Christ as much as you, then pick a country in Europe and move!

  23. Jack Robertson March 8, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    Christians must be “Reigned in” to compliance.

    Wow! Now who’s the intolerant hypocrite? Everyone is intolerant who doesn’t espouse YOUR hate-laced atheistic dogmas. Amazing. You probably have a coexist sticker on your subaru too.

    • Jack March 9, 2010 at 4:01 pm

      Hate-laced atheistic dogmas? Sounds pretty defensive. The word dogma, though created solely to define catholic church policies during the reformation, does in fact apply, in theory, to the small sect of radical atheists that have limited tolerance or respect for the religious (whatever the religion may be). In fact, it can be used in any sentence replacing the word opinion or policy. However, these radicals, like those in various religions, are not the vast majority. My problem is that you’ve gotten off topic. “Hate-filled dogma” (notice the hate-filled preface) does not apply whatsoever to freethinkers, humanists, agnostics, rational theists, and those atheists that are still respectful (which are the groups that visited the White House, and this article was written about). These groups are always wrapped up into the same “atheistic” viewpoint, when in fact, their very general belief is this: “I don’t know, and I’m willing to admit I’m probably wrong, and guess what, no matter how secure you think your beliefs are, you truly don’t know either.” Plenty of theists will behave in a similar manner, (I know plenty), but the defensive reaction only shows complete intolerance to viewpoints opposing the Christian belief system, when in fact, it is clearly documented that it should play no role whatsoever in the American government. American is not Christian… in fact the many of the founding fathers were humanists, freethinkers, and agnostics… wait, what did the members of the group that came to visit the White House believe again?

      • Jack Robertson March 9, 2010 at 4:57 pm

        I don’t know if I would describe it so much as “defensive.” I would say ‘push-back’ is more accurate. But maybe that’s just semantics. I disagree with the premise of the article. The men who started this country were largely prayerful, bible-believing men who recognized God as the source for our prosperity as a nation. They simply did not want a state-sanctioned church, and I AGREE with them.
        I don’t believe most atheists are tolerant toward Christianity, in particular. I believe they are generally hostile toward the notion that Christ died on their behalf for their sins. If they accepted His sacrifice for them, they would feel obligated to change their lives and follow the example Christ taught and modeled. I think that they (you) want to live your own lives your own way so badly that atheists (in the general term) don’t WANT to believe God has any place for them, personally or corporately (nationally). That is just rebellion against Him, and that makes me sad. You really don’t know Him and don’t care to.

        • Jack March 11, 2010 at 4:18 pm

          First, what’s with the “yous” flying around here? Do you know me? Do you have any idea what I think or how I’ve come to believe what I do? No sir, you do not. I really think you need to take the time to go back and re-read/study some Christian and non-Christian sources alike. Oh no! The heresy! Reading something opposing to one’s viewpoint! I was raised in the Christian faith; I went to church every Sunday, attended Christian schools from gradeschool through college, and yet… I’m now not a Christian. How can this be? Oh the paradox.

          I’m not going to go into an American history lesson, because I can respect that you have probably read something, but I recommend you go back with an objective, open mind (if that’s possible at this point in your life) to those sources, and do this with the Bible (including the texts that appear out of the Catholic sanctioned books) as well. And I’m going to hope and pray that your version is not the King James edition. Unless you actually take the time to read on this subject, you will forever just “believe what you want to believe,” regardless of the foundation it is built on. I see that to be the ultimate darkness, or blindness, whichever you prefer.

          Spare me the fundamentalist (I assume you are a protestant of some denomination, but I could be wrong) jargon at the end of your paragraph. Sir, I can guarantee I understand Heshua Bar Joseph far more than what you do, and believe me, I more than cared to spend the time trying. Your premature judgement insults me.

          If you sounded like a level-headed, rational, intelligent, objective, able-to-admit discrepancies theist, then I’d continue onward with what I’ve come to believe, and why. But sir, it seems that it is you who lacks the desire to pursue such a path, and YOU who would not care to.

          And that is the underlying problem that is addressed in this article.

          • Jack Robertson March 11, 2010 at 6:07 pm

            Well, neither of us are going to change the other’s mind, so we’ll just have to part disagreeing on this issue. And time will tell who’s right. If you’re right, I’ve wasted a lot of Sundays when I could have been hunting or fishing. If you’re wrong, well … you know how it’s gonna turn out. Your call, I guess. You said you are now NOT a Christian, after ALL the studying you’ve done. That’s interesting. So, what did you conclude? Do you have a faith? If so, what?

            • Jack March 14, 2010 at 1:40 pm

              There’s no right and wrong on this issue, that’s always been the problem. What have I concluded? Do you really think you’re going to get a definitive answer on existence from someone responding to a comment on an article post? I hope you can see the comic relief in this statement, haha. But in a nutshell, since you were kind enough to ask, you’ve already somewhat stated what I’ve come to believe. Personally, I feel you are indeed better off hunting and fishing every Sunday, or doing whatever helps you find your inner muse, peace, and enlightenment. You will find “God” there more than you will any day you spend in any church listening to preaching on a level even a first grader can understand. Here’s a parable a friend told me recently: “A young boy goes fishing by himself every afternoon on the lake behind his house until he reaches adulthood. It’s the only thing he really enjoys doing, but he must one day quit to get a job, raise a family, and work in the ‘real world’ for fifty or some odd years. One day he must then quit this too, and he returns to fishing, and he sometimes wonders why he ever stopped.” There are bigger questions than debating any one religion’s dogma. There are bigger questions than Heshua himself. I cannot know, but I feel he would agree wholeheartedly with me on this. If you really read, and I mean really read the bible and what Heshua actually says, you will see that “The Kingdom of Heaven” is not external at all. It’s internal. That’s what was so revolutionary about his teaching. “God” exists within; “God’s” existence is found within everything, every atom, and every space between the particles of atoms that make up matter itself. It’s very eastern influenced. Understanding the intangible in the universe that we simply cannot define or grasp is what I’m interested in. I do not belong to any denomination of faith, so therefore I guess I am classified as an agnostic. I don’t like the word “God,” hence the quotations. “God” cannot and never will be defined specifically to one word. After all of the studying I’m still in the “I don’t know” phase, I probably always will be, but I’ll keep looking, trying, and changing. I don’t fear the unknown; I embrace it. No matter what you or I say here, there will always be doubt lingering in the back of both of our minds, but the more you hide it, the worse off you’ll be when the time comes when your belief system is tested. So please, hunt and fish more, it will do you much good, it did for my father.

              • Jack Robertson March 14, 2010 at 9:21 pm

                You articulated your point of view well. While I don’t necessarily agree with your point of view, I truly understand the premise of what you are saying. You’re the kind of person I could discuss this kind of thing over a cup of coffee with. Best of luck to you in your search.

  24. Mark March 9, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Religions exist for one reason and one reason only and that is for the acquisition and maintenance of great wealth and political power. Remove the politics or the money from any religion and you have no religion.

  25. James March 10, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    Great article! Christianity has for far too long exercised a privileged status in American society, law, and government. It is high time that the 1st Amendment’s guarantees were fully respected and that extremist religions simply butt out of the secular, civil realm.

  26. ndtbfur March 11, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    so you are against any sort of marriage recognized by the state…civil unions of all sorts, subject to equal protection, etc, but not Holy Matrimony…but can y’all be “tolerant” enough to allow the Churches of various sorts to have their own marriages? or neutral enough to not spew more of the hatred and ignorance evidenced by this article on people of faith? or honest enough to clear your blowhole about how the Constitution is a secular document….and honest enough to admit and allow meaning to the role seeking religious freedom…of belief, practice and expression…played in the founding of the colonies and this Nation?

  27. TRCBlogger March 11, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    Those who seek freedom from religion or merely explore the possiblity of it are always shunned by those who seek to spread the great word of religion. In some cases, they are threatened or worse. Freedom from religion is a right and not something that should upheld by our government as the framers of our constitution intended.

  28. TRCBlogger March 11, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    Typo…Late night tired post, the post should say “Freedom from religion is a right and something that shuld be upheld by our gov…”

  29. anti_supernaturalist March 12, 2010 at 10:18 am

    the de-deification of the state
    the existence of some god is irrelevant to our radical freedom

    vicious circles of religious irrationality eventually end in repression and violence

    To read those who discourse in absolutes on behalf of some fictional “god” nauseates me. What happens when others’ “absolutes” don’t bow down to yours? Do you use a so-called sacred text to justify its own contents? Of course you do. Must you thump harder on your fictional screeds, supposedly dictated by a divine voice? Of course you must.

    Vicious (logical) circles are a refuge for the refuted. Religious ideologies dictate the type of interpretive gloss true believers scribble in the margins of fiction perversely accepted as holy discourse.

    Budding theocrats, unchecked by secular authority, will initiate repression, violence, even a coup d’état to impose their holy government — very much related to founding our secular state are the disastrous Puritan takeover of power in Britain (1649-1668) and Gibbon’s analysis of xianity’s central role in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776). The Constitution of the United States which is . . .

    the founding document of our secular state does not contain the word “God.”

    James Madison, primary author of the Constitution, in 1789 explained its two prescriptive clauses limiting the reach of religious authoritarianism:

    “. . . Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.” (Source: 1 Annals of Congress 730. August 15, 1789)

    These three simple demands appear in the anti-establishment doctrine of the first amendment and in the no religious test provision of Article VI Section 3. — The Constitution makes freedom of conscience a necessary condition for unfeigned religious belief to be possible.

    Here is radical freedom which millions of Americans would deny to all of us. Even should some “god” exist, as claimed by theism or by deism, we have the sovereign right to reject any claim that “It” must be acknowledged, accepted, or worshiped.

    Disbelief, as a form of a psychological attitude toward some claim, does not require any evidence. I may simply declare that your scriptural god is unworthy of my belief — for example, just sensing “His” androcentrism, I think that “He” stinks. And despite the alleged metaphysical consequence, I’m quite prepared to go to some xian Hell as a location where all the best souls will be found.

    a thought experiment in freedom of conscience you can try alone at home

    Dare to exercise your rights to disbelief and to be free from religion. Consider, if you can, the import of any supernatural claim should it be false. First, there would be no supernatural agents, locations, states, or events of any kind whatsoever:

    1. No supernatural agents: minds, souls, spirits, ghosts, godlings, gods, God (Allah, YHVH), cosmic soul, absolute.
    2. No supernatural locations: hell, purgatory, heaven, buddha realms, moral world order, transcendental existence
    3. No supernatural states: the numinous, sin, grace, revelation, life after death, illumination, nirvana, buddha mind.
    4. No supernatural events: mysterium tremendum, redemption, resurrection, rapture, mystical union, karma, or reincarnation.

    Second, nothing would alter in reality: not the Universe, the Solar system, the Earth, physical events, biological events, psychological events. Humanity’s supernatural hypotheses say nothing about nature —

    Third, nature itself would be neither meaningful nor meaningless. Neither a source of comfort nor a source of despair. Both ideologies are rooted in the same mistaken presupposition that meaning should be found by searching “the starry heavens” for divine agents or by quarrying human inwardness for moral or cosmic “laws”.

    Altering Nietzsche: There are altogether no supernatural phenomena, only supernatural interpretations of phenomena. (Compare, Beyond Good and Evil. section 108.)

    religious Ponzi schemes offer nothing but mendacious humbuggery and vampirism

    Faith provides no contact with reality — consequently religions, above all the big-3 monster theisms (xianity, islam, judaism) clearly revealed as nothing but naked power structures must indoctrinate, lie, punish, bribe, co-opt power. They must feed upon the faithful — sucking money, time, psychological energy, and life itself — to enrich their institutions and to establish their irrational ideological agendas as theocratic dominions enforced by thuggery, violence, and warfare. (Just as the “C” Street Family seeks to do in Uganda, and later here in a theocracy. I call it “Ameristan.”)

    Religions’ sacred Ponzi schemes cannot be tolerated. Their defrauded dead investors are numbered in millions; their fraudulent tax-free take in billions. Their ideologies are inimical to constitutional secular democracy and to an open society — they are dismissive of human life, freedom of conscience, and freedom of thought.

    The de-deification of western culture (including the law and sciences) is our task for the next 100 years. We owe it to James Madison.

    the anti_supernaturalist

    • Jack Robertson March 12, 2010 at 6:52 pm

      Hey, I know … let’s do like the soviets, and Cuba, and China, and North Korea (just to name a few) and ban God, because everyone knows that religion leads to violence, destruction and death! I mean, atheist communism only lead to 200 million deaths just in the last century. Yeah, we gotta definitely dump God from the equation so we can achieve our global godless utopia.

      anti_supernaturalist , you’re NOTHING but a deceiver and a slithering viper!!!

      • Ole Ole Olson March 12, 2010 at 9:36 pm

        Pat Robertson, is that you?

        Atheism did not kill anyone, evil dictators did, and by the way, Hitler was not an atheist and his ties to the catholic church are very well documented.

        • Jack Robertson March 13, 2010 at 7:42 am

          Christianity did not kill anyone, evil people who twisted it for their own gain and agenda did.
          I never mentioned Hitler, did I? He was just one example of someone who used religion and twisted it to meet his own agenda.

          BTW, got your Robertson’s mixed up.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login